JUDGMENT Ghese and Pratt, JJ. - The Plaintiff is the purchaser at a Bale for arrears of revenue which took place on the 25th March 1897. The sale was not a sale of the entire estate, but only of a share thereof under the provisions of Section 13 of the Revenue Sale Law (Act XI of 1859). The Defendants or rather their ancestors, are persons, who, on the 3rd November. 1838, had acquired a mokurari right over the entire estate from the then proprietor thereof. Recently, however, some of the mokuraridars purchased from two of the proprietors of the estate a 5 annas 1 dam share thereof. The present suit was instituted in February 1899 for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that the Defendants had no valid subsisting mokurari lease in the property and that, after the auction sale, no right, title or interest in the share purchased by Plaintiff remained with the Defendants. 2. The Court below has, however, found that the mokurari set up by the Defendants was really granted in 1838 by the then owners of the estate. It has further found that, upon the purchase by the Defendants, or some of them, of the 5 annas 1 dam share of the proprietary interest, the mokurari did not merge into the higher interest, but that having regard to the provisions of Section 64 of the Revenue Sale Law, the Defendants' mokurari must be taken to have come to an end to the extent of the 5 anna 1 dam share which they had in the zamindari. The suit has otherwise been dismissed. Against this declaration by the District Judge the present appeal has been preferred by the Defendants. 3. The case depends entirely upon the construction of Section 54 of the Revenue Sale Law. That section runs thus : "When a share or shares of an estate may be sold under the provisions of Section 13 or 14, the purchaser shall acquire the share or shares subject to all encumbrances and shall not acquire any rights which were not possessed by the previous owner or owners." Now the mokurari lease in favour of the Defendants, in November 1838, was unquestionably an encumbrance within the meaning of the section and the Plaintiff, having purchased only a share of the estate under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, acquired it subject to this encumbrance. Let us then see how, though the Plaintiff has purchased a share of the estate subject to the mokurari, can he be entitled to treat the mokurari to the extent of 5 annas 1 dam share as having been extinguished, as the Judge has put it, by reason of the sale at which he purchased? It will be observed that the concluding words of Section 54 are very significant as bearing upto the question which we have to consider, those words being-"and shall not acquire any rights which were not possessed by the previous owner or owners." The section does not say "he shall acquire all the rights which were possessed by the previous owner or owners," for, in that case no doubt, the position taken by the District Judge would be correct, because the Defendants, at any rate some of them, being proprietors to the extent of 5 annas 1 dam share and being also possessed of the molurari interest in respect of the said 5 annas 1 dam share, it might be said that their rights, that is to say, all the rights they possessed, not only in the 5 anna 1 dam share of the zamindari, but also in the 5 annas 1 dam share in the mokurari interest, passed to the Plaintiff. But as we have already pointed out, the law does not give to the Plaintiff such rights. As bearing upon the construction of Section 54, we desire to refer to the provisions of Section 14 of the Revenue Sale Law. That section relates, amongst other matters, to a purchase by the shareholders other than the owner of the defaulting share, in the event of the sale of the share in default not fetching the full amount of the arrears due to Government and it provides as follows : "The Collector shall declare that the entire estate will be put up to sale for arrears of revenue at a future date, unless the other recorded sharer or sharers, or one or more of them, shall within ten days purchase the share in arrear by paying to Government the whole arrear due from such share. If such purchase be completed, the Collector or other officer as aforesaid shall give such certificate and delivery of possession as are provided for in Sections 28 and 29 of this Act, to the purchaser or purchasers who shall have the same rights as if the share had been purchased by him or them at the sale," that is to say, the owners of the share or shares in the event of their becoming purchasers in the circumstances contemplated shall acquire only the same rights as if the share had been purchased by him or them at the sale. We introduce the word "only" as indicating what the Legislature clearly means, that is to say, that the said purchasor acquires only the same interest which he would have if he had purchased it at the sale. 4. Reading Section 54 by the light of Section 14 of the Act, it seems to us that it could not rightly be held that the purchaser of a share at a revenue sale u/s 13 acquires all the rights which were possessed by the previous owner or owners and this is the position that has been taken by the District Judge, In his connection we may refer to the case of Madhub Chunder Chowdhry v. Promotho Nath Roy (1873) 20 W.R. 264, the particular passage which we have in view being found at p. 266. That was a case of the sale of an estate in respect of which a separate account had been opened in the Collectorate; and the learned Judges, in delivering judgment, amongst other matters, observed as follows : "It is, therefore, clear that the Plaintiff is not the purchaser of an entire estate. Had he been so, he would have acquired the estate free from all encumbrances and would have been entitled to avoid and annul all under-tenures with the exception of such as are reserved under the provisions of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. Had he been so, he would have acquired the estate free from all encumbrances and would have been entitled to avoid and annul all under-tenures with the exception of such as are reserved under the provisions of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. The Plaintiff being the purchaser of a share in an estate has acquired that share subject to all encumbrances and he has acquired no rights which were not possessed by the previous owners : see Section 54 of Act XI of 1859." The question here arises, whether the previous owners of the estate or the owner of the share which the Plaintiff has purchased at the revenue sale, had the right to annul the mokurari set up by the Defendants. It is obvious that they had no such right; and it could not rightly be said that the Plaintiff, having purchased that share subject to all the encumbrances which had been created by the previous owners thereof, is entitled to treat the mokurari to the extent of a 5 annas 1 dam share, as having been extinguished by the sale in question. A similar view was expressed in the case of Kasinath Koowar v. Bankubehari Chowdhry (1869) 3 B.L.R. (A.C.) 446; 12 W.R. 440, the particular passage we have in view being at p. 450. Upon these grounds we think that the learned Judge has not taken a right view of the respective rights of the parties to the suit. We accordingly order that his decree be varied so as to dismiss the suit with costs.